World War 1, World War 2, Holocaust, Stalin, Communism in countless countries, Mao, Pol Pot, Rwanda. I could go on and on. In 2018 the world is less violent. That’s not just @mayoman opinion, it’s fact

Who was killing whom in large numbers before we invented guns and explosives? I know Genghis Khan and others were a bit over exuberant but as a percentage of world population, due to technology, we are probably killing more now. Deaths from famine, disease etc are a different story.

WW2 will be hard to topple in terms of casualties. Whatever you feel about drone and missile attacks, it has to be immeasurably more accurate than the widescale carpet bombing of cities that went on. When you add in the holocaust, you see death and destruction on a grand scale before even taking into account the actual battles

officially 60 million dead in WW2, but there were more to be added in China and Russia in the aftermath. If you count ww1 and 2 as one war with a pause in it - and include collectivisation, the purges and the civil war in russia as part of that ongoing process, along with the initial chinese invasion by japan - you can get to well over 100million

Easily. Throw in another 100 million in the 20th century as a result of the spread of communism. Nothing we’ve seen so far in the 21st century even compares. I accept we’re only 18 years in and there are some potential serious flashpoints but as it stands the world is a lot less violent today than 100 years ago. That’s indisputable

DR JEFF MICHAELS In the vast majority of cases, scenarios of future war have rarely come to pass as originally envisioned. At least two inter-related reasons can account for this. First, due to the…

this is a blog on a book I got way back in the 80’s, which is widely accepted as how NATO would have reacted to a Warsaw Pact invasion in 1985.

leaving aside everything else, what the authors (all of whom are/were high ranking NATO officers) agreed on was that a conventional war wouldnt last long - the stockpile of weapons would run out fast, and due to their complexity and cost would not be as easily replaced as in WW2.

This was 30 years ago. The same would have to apply now, if you count the costs of the Iraq wars (both of which were against relatively puny opposition). For example, the new UK flagship the HMS Queen Elizabeth has costed billions but could be out of action from a missile strike and probably un-repairable. They can only afford her and another one and they are reducing their army at a massive rate as the sheer costs of running a modern army go into hyper inflation.

If there is ever a war with Russia, it will be short, it will not involve millions of conscripts or reservists, but it will be collassal in its damage.

Let me know your criteria in which you claim it’s less violent. In my opinion under most common criteria in which violence is judged, unfortunately the world has become more violent. I can give you figures simple or complex if you give me your criteria. Nothing complicated just the norm i.e. Are you going by violence from war or all violence or other etc

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation,” although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of “the use of power” in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.[2] This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).

Globally, violence resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1.28 million people in 2013 up from 1.13 million in 1990.[